Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 30, 2012 9:30am-10:00am PST

9:30 am
1200 bmr units, do you know where most of those are in the pipeline? are those projects approved and not just constructed? >> maybe i will call up our data folks here. >> my understanding is that when we pulled that -- i will have to get back to you on that -- that they are all projects that are is gone through the entitlement process and are in various stages of construction. it bonte go wouldn't go back to all. >> how many -- out of curiosity, it's like a doubling of our numbers and i want to know how much time was that? >> i think last time i spoke with miss egan, she thought that 1200 would be for
9:31 am
market-rate development. >> it would depend. >> so those projects that we're contemplating? great. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and
9:32 am
housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. if it comes up in the future, i would like to hear about it. >> i also want to thank you on your presentation and wanted to ask mr. chue, the data that you gave us today kind of illuminated the need for more education or focused on credit scores, as you said. what do you think, and you mentioned working with the groups that are in community such as metta.
9:33 am
what do you think is a timeline for working through that process? it may be preliminary to ask, but what are some ideas? would it be new programs that would come out of it or a changed process or something like that? >> those are good points. in terms of being able to utilize prop c dollars as appropriate, we plan to begin working with stakeholders in january for those funds that will be flowing in july. so any new programs or expansion of programs, i think would hopefully be able to begin. as of july 1st. in terms of the structure of those programs, some of the ideas that we have had have been, for example, how do we link our homeownership counseling organizations with other opportunities where families come in to access services? so do we need to link them up with family resource centers? so someone comes in to a family resource center for information about for example,
9:34 am
subsidized child-care, that could be an opportunity for someone who isn't necessarily thinking about homeownership. but when they start to think about their finances in general, if it's a linkage with the school district. for example, the city has their baby bond program, so that every child starting in elementary school can have some sort of little mini ida. maybe that is an opportunity for some people to think about their finances. so i think linking in that might be more effective. talking to people and saying have a bad credit score, come in and talk to us. that is not going to entice most people to come in a tuesday night, but how your finances affect your health our your children's health and education? those are the kind of things that will motivate people that might not married ordinarily
9:35 am
come. >> call the question. >> (roll call (. >> so moved, that motion passes 6-1. commissioners next on your calendar is item >> the first change is that this ordinance would provide cap on landlords on bmr [ao-ubts/]s. no. 2, i would clarify the timing of bmr developments by
9:36 am
requiring that the principle project may not get a certificate of occupancy until the required on-site units have certifies certificates of occupancy. no. 3 you just talked about requiring that the units that convert to ownership to sell for less than the price of ownership -- that is so confusing. it would require -- if they are going to concert, sell for less than price -- [speaker not understood] if you have a current tenant who is a rental tenant they may be able to qualified for ownership at a lower price. no. 4, celeb establishing pricing category. no. 5 change the status of projects using the california debt limit allocation committee.
9:37 am
i will talk about the cdlac units. no. 6, allow income levels of qualifying households to exceed those specified in recorded use restrictions under certain circumstances and lastly, authorize the mayor's office of housing to charge a monitoring fee to verify occupancy for affordable rental units where that authority has not been explicit in the past. those are the seven changes, and the mayor's office of housing is here to help you if you have questions on those. as you know, this ordinance was introduced on december 6th, so i want to point out that the version of the ordinance that
9:38 am
you have in your packet was prior to when i had the signed form ordinance. we have the signed form ordinance before you now. there are no substantive changes, but we didn't have this at the time that the packet was produced. we are recommending approval of the ordinance. it's in line with adopted city policy both in our housing element and in the planning code. there are three changes that i would like to recommend to your resolution. i have copies for the commission the first whereas clause is basically stating whereas now the ordinance has been introduced. because it wasn't introduced in referring to the board's file number. and then at the end, a resolve clause that has to do with effective date basically saying that the procedures manual and associated documents do not
9:39 am
become effective until this associated ordinance becomes effective. so those are two of the non-substantive changes that i think should be added to the resolution. the other in responding to representative for a project which you had approved in october. they were concerned that some of the changes might apply to this project, which you had approved, but they haven't finalized their entitlements. this is a project that has some of the cdlac-funded units and they felt that going through the inclusionary housing might be burdensome for them. we don't think it's burdensome and we don't think it was intended to apply to projects that you already approved and therefore, we're recommending that you do a grandfathering for those projects. so that this ordinance and the change of procedures would only apply to those projects that are approved after the effective date of the ordinance. so i think that is appropriate
9:40 am
grandfather and that way projects that are subject to this would know at time of approval that they are subject to it and that would be explicit. instead of right now there is some concern that it might retroactively apply to the projects that you have already approved. so those are the three changes to the resolution that staff would recommend. and we are here if you have any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> you might benefit from this. also i forget the mayor's office of housing has a few changes to the ordinance since it was introduced that i am sure everyone would like to see. >> thank you anne marie. again, this ordinance is intended to facilitate the procedures manual that you just
9:41 am
approved and really intends to codify best practices and improve transparency of the prix program. it's really a technical update to the procedures manual itself. there was one minor change to the ordinance of we intend to introduce at land use and i have copies to clarify that the housing fee should be updated as the effective day of the
9:42 am
ordinance. as previously written it was to be updated january 1st of next year and the ordinance will not have passed by january 1st of next year and so it aligns the ordinance passage proposed passage with the updating of the affordable housing fee. i have included edited versions and a clean version below. that is the only change. public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, peter cowan. it's overwhelming public interest and it's an incredibly important topic the inclusionly housing program. i wanted to support the mayor's office of housing and the work they have done to update the
9:43 am
procedures manual. since they needed to hear from somebody there are stakeholders out there that they think doing good work. our organization has a primary focus on low and very-low affordable housing, but we have been an advocate and part of the design of the inclusionary program all along. it's an incredibly important part of how we have housing for all, so to speak. the city's bmr program is functionally only city program for moderate income or some call middle-income permanently affordable housing stock. that is it and we're still waiting for information that shows us that the market is producing anything. in that income category it's above where our publicly subsidized affordable housing can hit. this is the program that
9:44 am
frankly produces housing for the middle-class, who are not able to reach the market. it's impressive over the life of the program. i think you heard a lot of numbers, 1200 units,. that is a good track record. as you all know the housing trust fund was a big package. and within that, and i think really smartly, we don't see it as a giveaway, but we see it as a very intentional and thoughtful policy. it incents on-site bmr to the developer for exchange to producing units, bricks and mortar, permanently affordable housing and developers are rewarded for that. so we should see an increase in the number of bmrs because of that. there is also a piece of trailing legislation that will
9:45 am
come before you presumably in the 1st quarter of next year. we think it's a smart idea to make sure that the program is as successful as possible. the idea is to allow more of a range of pricing both of the rental and for-sale, up to a cap, dealing with the low and moderate income categories and then basically vary the number of units that are required, according to the pricing. so you are still getting the same obligation in terms of cost, but you are allowing more variety of the pricing. again, smart stuff. just to conclude, the inclusionary housing program is an essential part of your housing policy and we're glad to seing that the mayor's office of housing putting in the effort and thank you folks as well. >> thank you. any additional public comment?
9:46 am
seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> mr. cowan spoke precisely of what i brought up on a number of instances and that is why i wasn't supportive, because i wasn't really clear on levels. this level that could float in certain instances say for example you brought the ami to 120-140 percentile, but you have to produce a higher percentage because your subsidy is less. so therefore, you begin to address the middle-class, because you get a couple of city employees, particularly if they are in public safety, and they are way above the levels that would be allowed by this program. they good to try to buy something and part of the provision with prop c, particularly with public safety officials, but i think using that in general is a good system. because you can build a higher
9:47 am
number because your subsidy is less if the income levels are higher and the prices are sold are. so i think that is very good way to approach this. i had a couple of questions on some of these things brought up. i understand the rate stabilization, but in fairness to the renter, but i didn't know that i guess bmr units the owners of those were the city? i'm not sure who it is. i guess it would be the project that they are in, are still allowed to raise annually .5% of whatever allowed under rent stabilization, is that correct? >> you are talking about bmr rental? >> yes, for bmr rental units. >> the increase in represent would be based on the pricing formula related to increases in ami. so it's outside of the city's rent stabilization program. it's not related to that.
9:48 am
>> even for a tenant, the same tenant? >> that is correct. what this clarifis is that an owner would not be able to "bank" those increases. so if didn't raise your rent in the first year, the second year and the third year, but came back in the fourth year and wanted to collect up those incremental increases, you would not be able to do that in this case. >> as along as these increases are made readily accessible to the owners of these units, so they know what each year is and they are reminded this is the case. because usually they are such very small amounts that even banking them doesn't end up being that big a percentage increase, but it's important that they know about it.
9:49 am
your principle -- the offsite has to have final completion of certificate before the principal is allowed. that makes a lot of sense. the affordable sros, i thought all sros were essentially affordable, but they are privately-owned and they could be at any price. i am not quite sure what you are doing with that one. >> it's really to establish a category of pricing for this unit type. where one did not previously exist. and so while we had pricing mechanisms for studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom as we see some privately developed market-rate sro-buildings, the studio pricing was not the appropriate pricing level to apply to this
9:50 am
building typography. >> and below the size of the studio and you have to price those a little differently. >> that is exactly right. >> and you mentioned a higher income would be allowed under certain circumstances for people to qualify. and i'm not quite sure what the circumstances would be. that is one the changes. >> so what we have seen is that a couple different situations. one is our current pricing mechanism and ami qualification formulas are very tight. meaning that a unit that is going to be sold at 90% ami, the eligible applicants also need to make 90% ami or below income. so it's a 1:1 match between the pricing the unit and the eligible income level. and given how the pricing
9:51 am
works, you really have to be at 89% ami for you to be able to afford the mortgage payment. you have to be credit worthy and have the required down payment. so we have seen cases where a pool of applicants is so restricted given the tight alignment between pricing and eligibility that we wanted to provide the eligibility for bmr units to be priced still at 90% ami, but the income eligibility extended up. so it provides a bigger pool of applicants and allows us to -- if facilitates the sale of the units more quickly. this was the good-faith effort line after a period of six months, units are not able to
9:52 am
be sold. and what this allows us is under certain circumstances to grant the ability for those re-sale units to be eligible to people for up to 20% above the ami level. it doesn't change the pricing, but gives us flexibility. >> i think that is right. because if someone is at 89 and right on the line and their income falls a little, they might have trouble making the payments. so it sounds like most of these things make a lot of sense. thanks a lot. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to thank staff for working so hard on this and thank you mr. cowan for coming out. i wish we had a packed wrong. i know it's lengthy and hard to
9:53 am
understand, but getting tot details is really what makes this city special and we should by proud to be the leader for inclusionary housing. i would move to approve with the amendments proposed by moe and planning department staff and reflect the date of the ordinance. >> second that. >> on that motion commissioners to approve with modifications (roll call ) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0. item 12 has been continued which places you on item 13.
9:54 am
>> good afternoon planning commissioners, planning department staff. the item before you today is an informational hearing on bicycle parking legislation. on august 9th, 2012 this commission approved initiation legislation and we talked with san francisco bike coalition, boma san francisco building as the association, union square ccd and real estate department and we received comments from many of the stakeholders.
9:55 am
staff also researched on best practices in comparable cities. we looked at portland, vancouver, new york, and also national doubt data from the association of pedestrian and bicycles. based on research, we have made some changes. i will first briefly discuss the impetus behind this legislation and next summarize the existing bicycle parking requirements in the planning code and discuss the ordinance in detail. i want to acknowledge sfmta, who is here, if you have any questions. bicycle ridership has significantly increased in san francisco over the past few years. sfmta's annual count shows ridership has more than doubled
9:56 am
since 2006. this report also estimated over 75,000 daily bike commutes in san francisco. with all of that ridership, the city has only 3,000 bike racks on the sidewalks. it requires better infrastructure, including bicycle parking. the san francisco bike plan was adopted in 2009, a collaboration between board of mta and the planning department. san francisco bike plan is an implementation arm for our general plan and this calls for plentiful and high-quality parking as one ever of its goals. first adopted in 1996 and at that time the requirements were only applied to city-owned and leased buildings.
9:57 am
the requirements were expanded on basis to city-owned and privately-owned garages in 1998 and to commercial and industrial uses in 2001 and residential uses in 2005 and hotel uses most recently in 2012. now i'm going to look at how our proposal would update the requirements. this proposal would include several requirements based on two bicycle typing types, class 1 and class 2 class 1 bicycle parking is secured, indoor parking targeted for long-term use usually by residents or employees. class 2 targeted short-term use, usually for visitors and can be located indoor or
9:58 am
outdoor. requirements would require calibrating parking requirements based on the characteristic of use. for example, office uses will have more employees than visitors, than the requirement for class 1 will be higher. for personal services such as a gym, there would be more visitors and employees and class 2 requirements would be higher. our proposal would overall increase bicycle parking requirements. forresidential uses, existing requirements are one per two units. which is really low, compared to comparable cities and contemporary green standards. small projects of four units are less would not be required to provide racks. they just need to provide sufficient space for bicycles.
9:59 am
for larger buildings over 100, the second box, the requirements will be sliding scale. so for any units over 100, the requirements would be 1:4 units. so for example, a 200-unit residential building will require 125 bicycle parking spaces. and also there will be class 2 requirements for projects -- residential probings projects which are geared towards visitors and guests. our proposal would better align these types defined for bicycle parking with other requirements such as car